After reading the post entitled "Why the Abortion Debate is Polarized" on The Scott Ross's blog ( http://thescottross.blogspot.ca/2012/04/why-abortion-debate-is-polarized.html?showComment=1334114759988 ) and reading the subsequent comments, I got to thinking about my own views on abortion. I consider myself a pro-choice person for the most part and a progressive and I want to contribute some food for thought to this discussion. Here goes:
1. I believe that abortions should be legal at any point in a pregnancy if there are serious health concerns for the mother and/or the baby. There are problems that can be discovered well into trimester 3 that fully justify, in my opinion, an abortion. And let me also add that there also needs to be room in the law to take into account sexual assault and the denial, fear and shame that come with it as well not having access to an abortion clinic. To me, there are a number of circumstances in which a woman should be able to get an abortion late in their pregnancy.
2. I believe that, in a healthy pregnancy, abortions should be limited to the period before a vast majority of babies would survive outside the womb. If 75% of babies, for example, could survive after 25 weeks, then 25 weeks should be the cut off for abortions. Once a pregnancy is well into the third trimester, why can't a woman have a C-section (if a doctor is willing to perform it and he/she thinks the baby will develop properly and be healthy) or carry the birth until full term and then give it up for adoption? That way the kid can still have a life and the mother doesn't have to be responsible for it.
3. why would a woman need to wait till the third trimester to have an abortion? It doesn't take 20+ weeks for anyone to realize that they can't afford or care for a youngin' properly. I understand that it's a big decision that should be considered carefully over some time, but surely this can be done in less than 20 weeks?
4. I will concede a couple of things: I know that this "conversation" the Conservatives want to have is probably the first step in an attempt to outlaw all abortions, so they shouldn't be trusted or taken at face value. Stephen Woodworth et. al. no doubt believe that if they can start limiting abortions now, they can make them altogether illegal in the future, which can NOT be permitted to happen. On the other hand, there is some logic in the thought a baby's life has value and it stands to reason that the rights of the soon-to-be-infant should be considered in this debate.
I will also admit that women should have the final say about what happens to their body; however, it's selfish not to consider the wishes of the father and the baby when deciding to have/not have an abortion. It took 2 people to get pregnant and now there is a baby in the womb, so all 3 need to be part of the final decision. I think the debate gets framed in the wrong way and people often will say "a bureaucrat in Ottawa has no right to intrude on my privacy and can't tell me what I can/can't do with my body" but I don't think it's that simple. The government has a responsibility to keep all people healthy and safe and already has many laws about what men, women and children can do with their bodies. And I think the government would be walking that fine line between giving women control of their bodies and making laws to keep people healthy and safe by allowing women to have abortions up until the 25th ish week and allowing them later if there are extenuating circumstances that justify it.
This is an issue that I would love to have a discussion with everyone about. Please feel free to leave comments below and don't worry if you are pro-life, pro-choice or somewhere in between. There is room for everyone here.
The law does not recognize personhood until birth. Because of this, it is fully legal for any woman to do whatever she wants with her body, including an abortion at any time she deems.
ReplyDeleteIt is NOT the job of the government to look after non-persons. It is the job of the government to look after PEOPLE. The woman always comes first. End of story.
That, sir, is the same extreme, uncomprimising attitude shown by the pro-life right on this debate. The only difference is that they say life begins at conception so no abortions of any kind should be legal. You are just spouting the opposite: personhood starts at birth, so all abortions should be legal.
DeleteI believe the correct answer is somewhere in the middle and requires a great deal of thought and debate. To me, as I said, an unborn baby should be given personhood at the end of a pregnancy when it is developed enough to survive outside the womb. The only difference between a fetus in that state and a born one is where it lives.
Except in extreme cases where lack of clinics, health and/or sexual assault are involved, why should abortions be performed right up until birth? Why shouldn't they stop when the baby is developed enough to survive in the world? Why shouldn't the unborn child have any rights at all? The mother is important and has a large say, but at some point the fetus starts to get one in my book.
I am pro-choice and I don't like that the issue of abortion is being revisited by the Federal Government, as it is clear that they want to slowly limit and attempt to eliminate abortion rights in Canada. On the other hand, I have no problem with adjusting the law slightly to give a baby rights starting at when it is developed enough to survive outside the womb. To me that is personhood and the government should recognize that!
Restricting abortion has been ruled by the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA to violate section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Namely the security of the person of women.
ReplyDeleteAny argument you make will have to address that fact. But it seems that you're willing to violate a woman's Charter rights to soothe your own ego.
Fair point and I am not trying to soothe my own ego. I am just trying to discuss and debate what the ultimate, ideal abortion law would be in a perfect world. I respect what the Supreme Court says, but still think that the baby needs to be taken into account late in the third trimester and I don't understand how how it violates the security of women to tell them that abortion should be done early in a pregnancy except under special circumstances like sexual assault, lack of clinics and health complications etc.
ReplyDelete